Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] An Evaluation of Heidegger's Case

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Joe, (sorry, I hit the send inadvertantly, earlier) With all due respect, your excerpts are too selective and partial. A reading of the whole subsection
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe, (sorry, I hit the send inadvertantly, earlier)

      With all due respect, your excerpts are too selective and partial. A reading
      of the whole subsection (364ff) should show that H was speaking in a
      provisional manner, something he does throughout the text and which is part and parcel
      of his phenomenological method.

      In any case, when you say "spouting Heideggerian philosophy", I suddenly get
      the impression that you are being a little snarky, as they say. I hadn't
      realized that this was some kind of negative appraisal of H in favor of the reified
      rationalist (Cartesian and perhaps 'analytical') subject. If this is so, your
      disagreements with H will have been a good deal more serious than my first

      I can better tailor responses if such is made plain.


      In a message dated 2/16/08 7:59:36 PM, jPolanik@... writes:

      > eupraxis@... wrote:
      > >jPolanik@... writes:
      > >>Descartes says 'I am' may be inferred; hence the claim: I experience;
      > >>therefore, I am. Heidegger denies the 'therefore' but accepts the 'I
      > >>am' anyway.
      > >Unless you have an unusual insight into Heidegger, I do not see how you
      > >can make that statement. I cannot follow the logic of your last post,
      > >and I am not sure what you think Heidegger's notion of "Being" is if
      > >you think that he accepts anything like an "I am". Wil
      > as I see it, there are many different interpretations of Heidegger's
      > notion of Being; but, none of them are pertinent to my previous post.
      > I'm evaluating the strength of Heidegger's case against Cartesian
      > philosophy; and, I'm suggesting that, in describing Heidegger's case
      > against Cartesian philosophy, we can't attribute to Heidegger any claims
      > that would cause collateral damage to his own philosophy if those claims
      > were applied to dasein as well as to Descartes. would you agree that
      > this is a reasonable proposal?
      > in any case, let's see what Heidegger portrays dasein as saying in the
      > first person and what dasein might say in the course of spouting
      > Heideggerian philosophy in the first-person.
      > [page references are to BaT, Macquarrie and Robinson translation]
      > "How can dasein exist as a unity in the ways and possibilities of its
      > being which we have mentioned? Manifestly, it can so exist only in such
      > a way that it is itself this Being in its essential possibilities ---
      > that in each case *I* am this entity." [365]
      > indeed, BaT opens with "We are ourselves the entities to be analysed"
      > [67] which I would translate into the first person singular as in the
      > first person this would be: 'I am this entity which I will analyze'.
      > perhaps 'entity' is too thing like; and, a dasein decided to drop it.
      > instead of saying 'I am this entity', dasein can still say 'I am this'.
      > there is no reason why dasein can not simply say, 'I am the referent of
      > "I"' --- which is all Descartes needs to prove his case.
      > hence, my evaluation: it is very difficult to construe this result as
      > the phenomenologically destruction of the 'cogito sum' that Heidegger
      > promised to deliver.
      > Joe

      Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.